Alignment definition challenge!

[Man_Over_Game]

I've got an odd request for you guys.

So we all have our own definitions of alignment, and how things fit into those categories. So I'm asking how you'd define a balanced alignment system. That is:

1/3 of all people are Good.
1/3 of all people are Evil.
1/3 of all people are Neutral.

And the same for the number of people that are Chaotic vs. Lawful.

Now, considering most people in the world would normally fall into most people's perception of Neutral, you'd have to start making some pretty grey-area claims about what defines someone as Lawful or Evil.

For example:

Good people are those that see a parked car on the side of the road, and worry that something is wrong.
Neutral people are people that see a parked car, and ignore it. Not my monkeys, not my problem.
Evil people are people who see a parked car and get frustrated at the fact that their presence is slowing down traffic.



Lawful people obey the law perfectly, even when someone isn't watching.
Neutral people stiffen up when they see a police officer.
Chaotic people privately bad mouth police officers, or break the law when nobody is looking.


At least, that's my best interpretation for a "balanced" alignment, where I could reasonably expect an equal number of people for each side.

What's yours?

[JNAProductions]

Why should 1/3rd of people be good enough to qualify as Good, or evil enough to be Evil?

[Kyutaru]

I don't think I can come up with a system definition that isn't 90% evil. While good people exist among the educated or happy, the overwhelming majority of commoners are living in daily hell. Other than isolated communities you would be hard-pressed to find people who genuinely care about strangers or don't flip the bird at the caravan that almost ran them over.

[JackPhoenix]

How to create "balanced" alignment system? Alignment doesn't have anything to do with behavior. Everyone gets one assigned randomly at birth, to fill the mandatory quota. It's the only way to get perfect numbers.

[Kyutaru]

How to create "balanced" alignment system? Alignment doesn't have anything to do with behavior. Everyone gets one assigned randomly at birth, to fill the mandatory quota. It's the only way to get perfect numbers.

Morality as a nature instead of a nurture... that might invalidate a lot of the lore out there, like how Saruman flipped and how Raistlin has been everything from savior to jerk. Making the world black and white is how Final Fantasy does it though.

[bid]

At least, that's my best interpretation for a "balanced" alignment, where I could reasonably expect an equal number of people for each side.
40% rain doesn't mean 40% of the locations get rain 100% of the time.

If 1/3 of the people "got wet" from an evil rain, how long does it take them to dry up and return to Neutral?
And how many will seek out evil rain to stay wet?

I think this is a much more interesting approach to alignment.

[Kyutaru]

Speaking of rain forecasts, alignment tends to spread. Communities are mostly good or mostly evil or mostly neutral. Having outlying deviants is a thing but society forces conformance. With how dangerous D&D settings seem to be it's even more important to have the town on your side. Little pockets of good and evil exist throughout the kingdom based on majority rule and they form the laws that govern how you will thrive there. If you don't enjoy living there chances are you're going to leave. The ones that stay adopt the practices at least outwardly or live disconnected and shunned.

[Coffee_Dragon]

People overthink alignment so hard.

But to answer the question, if Batman fits every alignment, the system is bat-balanced.

[Brookshw]

Not for nothing (or maybe exactly for nothing), iirc D&D doesn't assume a default even split. I'd have to check older editions, and maybe it's changed, but I think it was somewhere closer to 10-20% are supposed to be evil as far as general population distributions go.

[Yakmala]

Personally, I think it breaks down more like this:

Good: 10% The majority of people who say they are good are actually neutral. They aren't evil, but they don't live their lives trying to do good whenever possible.
Neutral: 85% The average person. They're just trying to get by day to day, living their lives and letting others do the same.
Evil: 5% There's not many truly evil people, but there doesn't need to be. A handful of evil people can disproportionately impact the lives of all the neutrals and goods around them.

Law:20% This may vary from culture to culture, but most people are just living within the framework of their society as best they can, they're not actively upholding its laws.
Neutral:60% Again, the average person. They will stretch the law to its limits at times, but not before looking around first to make sure no one is watching.
Chaos:20% They're not necessarily evil, but they are putting themselves first. They'll get away with whatever they can.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why should 1/3rd of people be good enough to qualify as Good, or evil enough to be Evil?

This seems very balanced, very orderly...Very lawful. Therefore, I must oppose it.

And I think chaotic people need to do more then simply bad mouth the law, but to actively oppose it in the manner they see fit. They don't break the law when no one is looking because they are chaotic, they do it when no one is looking because they aren't stupid. Even the most law-abiding goody goody two shoes paladin blessed by Heironeous himself isn't going to oppose the law when everyone is looking!

[JackPhoenix]

Morality as a nature instead of a nurture... that might invalidate a lot of the lore out there, like how Saruman flipped and how Raistlin has been everything from savior to jerk. Making the world black and white is how Final Fantasy does it though.

That's not what I was saying. Alignment would have nothing to do with behavior... it would just be meaningless label, because that's the only way to get the desired equal distribution. There simply isn't any way to divide not only different cultures, but entirely different species into 3 equally numerous groups according to their behavior.

You could propably create a setting where that's possible, but the result would be people not behaving like people, and the whole thing would feel artificial.

[Fable Wright]

Eberron was written from that assumption:

Good is empathic, Evil is sociopathic. About 1/3rd of people don't care how other people suffer, but still don't make any trouble for others, and just quietly move alone. About 1/3rd are neutral, and feel bad/offer token support when someone is in a pinch, but don't do more. About 1/3rd are good, and will go out and donate to charity or take the time to help someone on the road.

The main proponent of peace on Khorvaire is a vampire who has supernatural sociopathy inflicted on him, and he remains Evil.

Law/Chaos follows a similar spectrum. About 1/3rd of people will follow the rules when no one is looking, about 1/3rd will weigh the costs of breaking the rules or not, and 1/3rd don't care about rules unless someone's looking over them to enforce it, but might go along with expected behavior anyways because they're not a jerk.

[Trickery]

If you consider 1/3rd of your population to be evil, then what would you do with those people? Incarcerate them, presumably? If so, you would end up with a higher proportionate prison population than the United States, and the US already locks up more people proportionately than any other country.

There's a lot to be said about our perception of evil, as in someone so bad that they aren't worth trying to save.

Put another way, if you have a barrel of potatoes and one of them is rotten, do you throw out that potato, throw out the whole barrel, throw out the whole barrel and kill the person who sold it to you? Or do you just cut out the rotten part and keep the rest?

Ahem...to address the challenge, if you want loose enough definitions of good and evil to grab 1/3rd of the population, you're going to need some low standards. You're also going to need to phrase it in terms of everyday normal people stuff - otherwise the situations will never come up for you to judge the person. The same goes for chaotic and lawful. So:

1/3rd Good: Willing to sacrifice their own well-being to help friends. Hang onto these people.
1/3rd Neutral: Don't care enough about friends to help them out except when convenient. These people aren't really your friends.
1/3rd Evil: Gossip about their friends, don't help anyone out, actually make things a little worse for the people around them, and feel better about themselves when their friends have difficult lives. Avoid these people.

As for lawful versus chaotic.

1/3rd Lawful: gladly pays taxes.
1/3rd Neutral: begrudgingly pays taxes.
1/3rd Chaotic: dodges taxes whenever possible.

[Kyutaru]

If you consider 1/3rd of your population to be evil, then what would you do with those people? Incarcerate them, presumably? If so, you would end up with a higher proportionate prison population than the United States, and the US already locks up more people proportionately than any other country.

There's a lot to be said about our perception of evil, as in someone so bad that they aren't worth trying to save.

Put another way, if you have a barrel of potatoes and one of them is rotten, do you throw out that potato, throw out the whole barrel, throw out the whole barrel and kill the person who sold it to you? Or do you just cut out the rotten part and keep the rest?

You could go the route Final Fantasy XIV went in their world of light. Destroy them all.

See it as having mold on your bread. The mold will spread, infecting more bread. So destroy all the mold. Then you can have nice bread.

[Beleriphon]

I've been thinking about this from the perspective of RDR2 (that's Red Dead Redemption 2 for those that don't do video games).

RDR2 a western its own morality bar but has nothing to do with good/evil. The main character is Arthur Morgan. He's a murdered, a thief, a train robber and much worse. He's not a good man, but the game asks you does being a bad man make you a terrible person?

The game also has Dutch van der Linde who lives life as an outlaw bandit because he doesn't hold to ways of polite society, they are constricting. They crush the life and freedom out of a man, and only by living outside of those laws and rules can you truly be free. Dutch would very much be neutral evil in D&D, however his philosophical meanderings have a much more chaotic and neutral bend to them.

As for the 1/3 split between all possible options (1/9 per category then) I don't think is the intention of the alignment system.

I'm fairly certain that 1/9 of the population in a given setting isn't mean to be Deadpool or Dutch van der Linde, nor is 1/9 of the population supposed to be The Joker or Hannibal Lecter.

Unless you mean 1/9 of any given setting is CE and represented by orcs and drow, while 1/9 is LG and represented by some friendly civilization of your creation. I suppose that might work for D&D demographics after a fashion.

[Fryy]

People overthink alignment so hard.

But to answer the question, if Batman fits every alignment, the system is bat-balanced.

Just ask Batman. He could tell you because he definitely has a "Bat-Alignment Detector". I'm talking about the Adam West version, here. Uhh... and it's either (canary) yellow with the words 'Bat-Alignment Detector' labeled in Black... or it's Black with (canary) yellow labeling. For gosh sake, he's got 'Bat Shark Repellent' and do you really think he doesn't have a Bat-Alignment Detector?! I mean, c'mon, he's Mr. Contingency.

[hamishspence]

As for the 1/3 split between all possible options (1/9 per category then) I don't think is the intention of the alignment system.

I'm fairly certain that 1/9 of the population in a given setting isn't mean to be Deadpool or Dutch van der Linde, nor is 1/9 of the population supposed to be The Joker or Hannibal Lecter.
.

The Joker represents extreme CE. Most CE characters will be much "milder" in a system where Evil and Good are common rather than rare. Eberron is such a system.

[Greywander]

This is a tricky prospect, mostly because alignments are already heavily ingrained into the lore. I, for one, don't like having a Good-Evil axis because I like a more nuanced morality system, where Light is not Good and Dark is not Evil. That said, it is what it is, so the best we can do is work within the constraints of the system already in place. As such, here is my offering:

Good-Evil Axis

Good
Your philosophy pushes you to seek the greater good. You tend to evaluate an action on the basis of the overall effect on everyone involved, rather than it's just its effect on yourself. You will happily make sacrifices if the overall benefit to someone else is greater than the cost to you. In this, you believe that if everyone were to give up something small in order to create a greater benefit to others, then everyone would be living a happier life, as one would just as often be the beneficiary of such sacrifices as they are the donor.

Corrupted Good
Most Good creatures only expect willing sacrifices for the greater good. Those who are corrupted in their sense of Goodness take things a step further, and will cause harm to others if that harm is less than the benefit to others. No sacrifice is too great in the name of the greater good.

Neutral
You don't hold to lofty ideals regarding the "greater good", believing such a concept far outside your ability to influence. Instead, you focus mostly on benefiting yourself and your friends and family without causing harm to others. If everyone were to take care of their own piece of the world, instead of trying to take care of all of it, then the world would be a better place. You will readily help out friends and family, but for strangers you are much more reticent, considering the situation from the perspective of how it might affect you should you offer or withhold your help.

Evil
The only thing that matters is yourself. No one else is going to take care of you, and you shouldn't have to take care of anyone else. You still have friends and family, but you are loathe to rely on them for charity, and likewise don't want them to be dependent on you, even if it requires some tough love. You understand the value of teamwork, but want neither to hold back nor be held back by your team mates. If someone doesn't have what they want in life, then it's their own darn fault; they have the ability to take what they want, and yet choose not to do so. Not your problem.

Redeemed Evil
Most Evil creatures are only concerned with their own ambitions. Those who are redeemed in their sense of Evilness take delight in seeing others raised up. They still believe that each person should take care of themselves, but are more willing to offer their wisdom to help them do so, and less likely to senselessly tear someone else down for their own benefit. They want a society full of strong people who can take care of themselves rather than relying on the charity of a benefactor.

Sadistic Evil (take 2, after doing all the other "corrupted" alignments)
Most Evil creatures are disciplined enough to exercise restraint when pursuing their ambitions. Those who are sadistic in their sense of Evilness take delight in the suffering of others, even when they have nothing to gain. They will tear down and destroy anything and anyone at every chance they get, regardless of the consequences that may follow. They quickly become odious, even to other Evil creatures, and are often destroyed quickly.

Lawful-Chaotic Axis

Lawful
You're a creature of habit, one who enjoys routine. You thrive on the stability that comes with laws and rules. It could be said that you have your own code of honor, but it is more that you have a set of strong, principled stances on what is Right or Wrong, Good or Evil, Permitted or Not, and you adhere to these ethical rules almost religiously. You aren't any more inclined to follow laws you disagree with, but are more likely to live somewhere where the local laws align with your own principles, or else work to change those laws to reflect your principles. In a word, you are consistent in your beliefs and actions.

Dysfunctional Lawful
Most Lawful creatures adhere to a set of principles that are internally consistent and function within society. Those who are dysfunctional in their Lawfulness might hold to principles that conflict with one another, or might try to force their principles onto other creatures, even if those principles don't make sense for others. Ultimately, their own principles work against their interests, and cause more problems than they solve.

Neutral
You like to find a balance between routine and new experiences. You still enjoy the stability that comes from routine, but chafe under its monotony. Sometimes, you'll do something different, just on a whim. You have principles, but don't hold to them as strongly. Your principles act more as guidelines, and you judge each situation within its own context. You're more willing to bend your principles, and can be swayed in your stances by persuasion.

Chaotic
You are a whimsical creature, who loathes routines and habits. You see rules and laws as restrictive and without benefit. The unpredictable nature of a lawless existence helps one learn to adapt to new situations as they arise, and makes for a much richer life experience. You lack principles of any kind, or your principles are vague and weak, instead relying on your intuition and emotional state at the time to determine Right and Wrong.

Disruptive Chaotic
Most Chaotic creatures are self-aware enough to act within their own interests, even when that means curtailing their self-expression. Those who are disruptive in their Chaoticness have no such filter, and will act out every single whimsy that passes through their head, regardless of potential consequences. They may be tolerated if their antics are entertaining, but often they quickly become destructive and other creatures will end their disruption by any means necessary.

[Tanarii]

Unless you mean 1/9 of any given setting is CE and represented by orcs and drow, while 1/9 is LG and represented by some friendly civilization of your creation. I suppose that might work for D&D demographics after a fashion.
According to the 2e World Builders Guidebook, about 25% of races are good demihumans, 25% human (so mixed alignments), and the remainder are predominantly evil humanoids.

[Xeko]

I would define good versus evil less about what a person does, but more how they feel about it.

--A GOOD person takes pleasure in helping others, even enemies.
--An EVIL person takes pleasure in harming others, even friends.
--NEUTRAL people make their decisions more contextually. They will help their friends, because they are their friends, and hurt their enemies because they are their enemies.

But, NONE OF THAT determines actions. Good characters DO kill if they need to, 100%. If they didn't, we wouldn't even have combat in D&D. And evil characters can absolutely end up being world renowned heroes, saving the world. An adventuring party, the player characters, can be either. The difference is, when the characters are old and grey, and the children of the village ask them what they miss most about their adventuring days, the good characters will remember the looks of joy and relief on the citizen's faces when they learned that the threat had ended, while the evil characters will remember the thrill of battle and the rush of victory. In both cases, the old hero would describe their time as an adventurer as "satisfying" or "exciting". But, for very different reasons.

The Law vs Chaos spectrum is kind of the opposite. It isn't so much about what a person feels is right or wrong, and it DOES dictate actions, to a degree.

--A LAWFUL character creates a set of rules or principles for themselves that they follow ALWAYS, even when doing so violates their own sense of right and wrong. Often times, these rules aren't even the laws of the land, but rather self imposed principles that the person believes in from the bottom of their heart.
--A NEUTRAL character doesn't usually create their own principles, but will willingly follow the principles laid out for them by others, to maintain a cohesive society. That said, they won't hesitate to deviate from these rules under extreme conditions, if they feel they need to.
--A CHAOTIC character has no principles at all. Their stances vary from topic to topic, without much consistency. They are basically the type to respond to any philosophical or hypothetical question with "it depends on the situation".

To give an example of the difference between Lawful and Neutral, since the two are so similar... Batman has a rule, that he will never ever kill. He knows for a fact that the Joker will kill dozens, if not hundreds, of innocents, and if he kills the Joker, he could prevent those deaths. He knows right from wrong, and recognizes that allowing the Joker to live is "wrong", and it will cause harm to innocent people. But, he still refuses to kill. No matter what. Batman is a Lawful Good character. Note that Batman still breaks the law of the land. But he never breaks his own personal law. "Lawful" doesn't necessarily refer to the legal laws. Superman, meanwhile, TRIES not to kill, he doesn't WANT to kill. But he has killed before, and he will kill again, if it means preventing the deaths of innocents. To be more broad, it's not just killing, but all of Earth's taboos. Superman believes that, as an alien lifeform living on Earth, he is in no position to dictate right and wrong or law and order to humanity. He makes no attempt to interfere with Earth laws, in any way, even if he disagrees with them them. Except when he has to in order to save the world, i.e. killing Zod. Superman is a Neutral Good character. In every day normal crime-stopping, they both follow the rules, and they both avoid killing. The real difference is how they react to the most extreme cases. When push comes to shove, and they have no other options, will they cross the line to do what needs to be done? Superman will. Batman will not.

[JackPhoenix]

According to the 2e World Builders Guidebook, about 25% of races are good demihumans, 25% human (so mixed alignments), and the remainder are predominantly evil humanoids.


3.5 didn't have human/demihuman/humanoid distinction, but according to random NPC creation tables, 20% of all NPCs were good, 30% were neutral, and 50% were evil.

[Laserlight]

Is there a reason you're setting it as a linear distribution instead of bell curve? I'd think you'd have a lot more Neutral/Neutral than you would Lawful Good.

I'd also put another axis in, basically "How much effort are you going to go to for your alignment?" Most people aren't going to exert themselves a lot.